Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Yes, that wacky NYT Sunday puzzle has thrown me for a loop again with it's occasional odd conservative bias. This one isn't an out-and-out fiction, but still:

Across
50. Political appointee

appears to be "CZAR." As I said last time, really? I mean, it's an awful definition...a tiny handful of all (American, presidential) political appointees are sometimes called "czars," and I do believe that there are quite a few non-governmental jobs that get the nickname "czar" (i.e. supply closet czar) despite not being political appointees. Not to mention those old Russian dudes. I don't know...perhaps I'm seeing right-wing crazy when I'm really just peeved at a poor clue, but I'll certainly be watching out for, oh, I don't know...

My two cents say you're crazy. A czar *is* a kind of political appointee, it's a bipartisan term (presidents from both sides have enthusiastically pointed to appointments of czars in the past), and it's just a completely uninteresting definition.

I'll put it another way -- "out and out fiction"? This is stone, cold fact. A czar is one type of political appointee. Now, in 10 years maybe you can make the case that it's getting a bit dated, but as of now, it's perfectly fine.